Skip to main content

Comment on the second reply by Higdon to the comment by Romero and Kannada on “Genetic analysis of 16th-century whale bones prompts a revision of the impact of Basque whaling on right and bowhead whales in the western North Atlantic”

Buy Article:

$50.00 plus tax (Refund Policy)


The second reply by J.W. Higdon (2008. Can. J. Zool. 86: 76-79) criticizes a previously published comment by us of T. Rastogi et al.’s (2004. Can. J. Zool. 82: 1647-1654) paper saying that we presented factual errors, misused key sources, and made a number of omissions. The main objective of our original comment was to show that there had been many other peoples and nations besides the Basques who were engaged in whaling in the North Atlantic for many centuries and, therefore, the Basques could not have been solely responsible for anthropogenic impacts on the populations of large whales in that part of the world. To that end we only sampled some sources to make our point. In this rebuttal, we show that Higdon mischaracterizes our comment as a historical review and that neither he nor B.A. McLeod et al. (2006. Can. J. Zool. 84: 1066-1069) provide any evidence that challenges our fundamental conclusions.

La deuxième réponse de J.W. Higdon (2008. Can. J. Zool. 86: 76-79) critique un commentaire que nous avons publié antérieurement sur un article de T. Rastogi et al. (2004. Can. J. Zool. 82: 1647-1654) lègue que nous avons présenté des erreurs de fait, utilisé des sources importantes à mauvais escient et fait plusieurs omissions. L’objectif principal de notre commentaire initial était de démontrer qu’en plus des basques, il y avait eu de nombreux peuples et pays impliqués dans la chasse à la baleine dans l’Atlantique Nord au cours de plusieurs siècles et qu’en conséquence les basques ne pouvaient pas être tenus les seuls responsables des impacts anthropiques sur les grandes baleines dans cette partie de la planète. À cette fin, nous n’avons échantillonné qu’une partie des sources pour appuyer notre argumentation. Dans notre réfutation des arguments de Higdon, nous montrons que celui-ci a mal caractérisé notre commentaire en y voyant une rétrospective historique et que ni lui ni B.A. McLeod et al. (2006. Can. J. Zool. 84: 1066-1069) n’apportent de données qui mettent en question nos conclusions essentielles.

Document Type: Discussion

Publication date: 2008-01-01

More about this publication?
  • Published since 1929, this monthly journal reports on primary research contributed by respected international scientists in the broad field of zoology, including behaviour, biochemistry and physiology, developmental biology, ecology, genetics, morphology and ultrastructure, parasitology and pathology, and systematics and evolution. It also invites experts to submit review articles on topics of current interest.
  • Information for Authors
  • Submit a Paper
  • Subscribe to this Title
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Sample Issue
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Ingenta Connect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites
  • Access Key
  • Free ContentFree content
  • Partial Free ContentPartial Free content
  • New ContentNew content
  • Open Access ContentOpen access content
  • Partial Open Access ContentPartial Open access content
  • Subscribed ContentSubscribed content
  • Partial Subscribed ContentPartial Subscribed content
  • Free Trial ContentFree trial content
Cookie Policy
Cookie Policy
Ingenta Connect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more